Coram Deo Podcasts

Proven Formulas

Reel Faith

November 10, 2010

Why I Don't Believe in the Bible...

I've encountered a growing number of Christians who resort to a single sentence answer as a way of reacting to the theological debates of our 21st century. Honestly, the more I hear this glib response, the more I understand why growing numbers of non-believers want nothing to do with the Church. While there are those within the Body of Christ who are dialoguing, listening and wrestling over immigration, politics, homosexuality, genetics and other assorted doctrinal issues with their Bible in their hands, many simply wave their hand and smugly declare, "The Bible says it, I believe it and that's good enough for me!"

If this is your repeated answer, your default mode in the midst of all that is happening within our world and within the Church, I encourage you to stop and really think about what you are saying. More than this, the next time you say, "I believe in the Bible"...ask yourself what that means specifically. Take a moment and consider the fact that Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah's Witness--not to mention Protestants of all flavors profess the same thing. They all "believe in the Bible" and yet they all believe different things about what the Bible says.

What do you make of this? How does this inform or challenge such bumper sticker theology? Are we called to believe in the Bible? I don't think so.

A few years back, Bart Ehrman wrote a book called "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" In this book, Ehrman shares how he lost faith in the Bible as the inspired word of God. This crisis of faith began for Ehrman with the realization that we do not have access to the original manuscripts of the biblical writings. For Ehrman, not having these source documents calls the legitimacy of the Bible into question. Furthermore, Ehrman points out that the writers who made copies of the original biblical manuscripts and the first set of copies and so forth sometimes altered the text, either unintentionally due to error or intentionally due to some theological agenda. Since these are the same copies that serve as the basis for the Bibles that we read and study from today, the whole book is suspect.

At the end of the day, Ehrman reasons that if the Bible is to be believed to be the inspired word of God then the content in the Bible must be proven to be the words from the very mouth of God. If one suggests that the words of the Bible were given by God to human authors, then the process of transmission from God's lips to our hears must be proven to have been passed along perfectly. We can't do this so therefore one ought not to believe in the Bible.

Interestingly, Erhman's criteria is closer to an Islamic rather than a classic Christian understanding of divine inspiration. The two key elements to Ehrman's debunking of the Bible are not secrets in the Church but key topics of study in textual criticism when you go to seminary. If you do a little reading, you'll discover that much of what Ehrman levies as arguments against the Bible on the basis of textual criticism are in fact some of the most compelling reasons to embrace ancient and modern translations of the Bible as reliable.

Now, let me be clear. When I wrote for the tagline of this blog "I don't believe in the Bible"--that did not mean that I don't believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Unlike Ehrman, I don't hold to such a narrow view when I profess to believe in the legitimacy of the Bible. My argument is that there is a difference between believing in the Bible and in believing in what the Bible reveals.

Another way of expressing this is to point out that Ehrman's argument is well taken when people want to say that the Bible is inerrant (without error). The Bible does have errors. This is not debatable. When confronted with this, many often argue, "Well, if we had the original manuscripts and if you went back to them, the originals are without error." Others will quickly add, "God is without error so therefore His word is without error!" The logic here is that which God intended to reveal through His word has been revealed without error. This is all well and good except for the fact that as we read and study we are interpreting what God's original intentions are. We don't have a divine commentary to go along with the Bible!

But I disgress. For me, the nagging question is, if God inspired the Bible, perhaps even ensuring that the original manuscripts were without error, why did God allow the process of textual transmission to be something less than inerrant?

I would humbly argue that the God we know in Jesus Christ seems to work like this all the time. From the very beginning of entrusting a creation that was good to highly suspect and clearly fallible human beings to the incredible and startling fact that God choses to work through a guy like me in leading the people of Grace Lutheran as their Senior Pastor (does anyone doubt that I make mistakes all the time in the name of Jesus?), God seems to be committed to working through less than perfect people.

The cornerstone of our relationship with this God is faith. Luther didn't stand on FACT ALONE, he stood his ground on FAITH ALONE. We worship a God who, for reasons that we don't completely understand or frankly agree with, has chosen to reveal just enough of Himself to us so instill faith but not enough so that we know Him absolutely or perfectly. Even in Christ, even via the Holy Spirit, this God is a mystery and will continue to be until we no longer see through a mirror dimly.

In the meantime, I believe that we have been given the Bible not so that we might have a transcript of God's words bur rather so that we might be drawn into an honest, truthful and real conversation (relationship) with Him. Yes, the words matter but less for the purposes of putting God or others in a box of our own making and more for the purposes of kindling, feeding and deepening a relationship of faith with Him. For me, the key is to rely and lean on the living God to whom the words point rather than to get all hot and bothered about each and every jot and tittle.

Words are subject to interpretation. Talk is cheap. Actions matter more. Relationships are messy. This God revealed to us in Jesus Christ doesn't seem to have as much of a problem with the mess as we do. In fact, this God seems to trust us and desire us so much that He is willing to put up with the messes that we invariably make--including the mess that we make in copying, interpreting, teaching and passing on His divine revelation. It gives new meaning to the word "inspired"--doesn't it?

So you go ahead and keep believing in the Bible. As for me and my house, we'll read, study and discuss the Bible but we believe in Jesus Christ...

Comments

Chris,

Great to see you writing again after all these months...Thought you were LOST at LOST. Fantastic reflections on the true nature of the Christis Scriptures...Of course Karl Barth said it best that the Bible is the written faithful word and witness to THE WORD AND WITNESS INCARNATE Jesus Christ.

Thanks for taking the time to write this. Living in the land of Biblical Exegesis at Regent College I have had the opportunity to dive into textual criticism. Like you, I have found the experience to only increase my faith, not diminish it. I would love for you to do a Part 2 in why that was the case for you.

Some of our required reading at Regent has been Bart Ehrman. While I haven't read "Misquoting Jesus" I have been exposed to his work. He essentially went from being one kind of fundamentalist to another kind of fundamentalist. Regardless, he remains a squeaky wheel.

You mentioned Sola Fide, but not Sola Scriptura. Perhaps Part 3 could be what Sola Scriptura means in light of this. But now I am just giving you more work to do.